A Familiar Stench Wafts Up from Alabama

Roy Moore is poised to jump into the Alabama Senate race in a bid to earn a rematch with Sen. Doug Jones, the Democrat who handed the former judge a stunning defeat in a 2017 special election.

Moore this past weekend told a gathering of grassroots Republicans that he would announce his 2020 plans in a matter of weeks. The 72-year-old perennial statewide candidate would enter the Republican primary the front-runner, according to a fresh poll.

Moore lost to Jones in deep-red Alabama amid revelations of sexual misconduct from decades ago. But the former chief justice of the state Supreme Court is champing at the bit for a do-over, believing he was treated unfairly and that voters, with the passage of time, would agree.

“The people of Alabama were hoodwinked; Jones had a free pass,” Moore confidant Dean Young told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “I would not be surprised if Judge Moore gets back in it.”

Moore is the one candidate that makes Republicans in Washington nervous.

Past allegations of sexual misconduct and what some regard as extreme right-wing positions limited Moore’s appeal against Jones in the December 2017 special election and could do so again. For that reason, both establishment insiders and conservative operatives are prepared to oppose Moore in the primary if he runs.

“The NRSC’s official stance is ABRM: anyone but Roy Moore,” Kevin McLaughlin, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in February, after Moore started making the rounds to gauge another run. “The only thing Doug Jones and I agree on is that his only prayer for electoral success in 2020 is a rematch with Roy Moore,” McLaughlin said.

Hoodwinked? Did that man say hoodwinked? Hoodw…hell, no, they weren’t hoodwinked; they had just had enough of Roy Moore. What a criminal misuse of the term hoodwinked.

Long before the 2017 primary that saw Roy Moore ride off on the horse that had brought him in a metaphor brought to life, the twice-defrocked judge was already unfit for office. He was twice removed from his position on the Alabama Supreme Court, first in 2003 and again in 2016 for breaking the law he was sworn to uphold. He was unfit for any further office based solely on either of those instances of him flouting the law for his own gain. And Moore and his supporters can couch it in whatever terms he wants, it was for the gain of Roy Moore. It wasn’t saving the Ten Commandments, it was the Ten Commandments as saved by Judge Roy Moore, righteous savior of Alabama Christianity. He wasn’t just advocating for family values, it was Judge Roy Moore Saves Political Christendom, Inc from the evil hordes. He wasn’t just for traditional marriage, he was Judge Moore vs all the gays who want to destroy you poor defenseless, politically active, and donation friendly simplefolks if not for the righteous law-breaking judge to stand up and stop them. The common thread is that Roy Moore is always chiefly concerned with Roy Moore, and if you attack Roy Moore it’s not because of Roy Moore’s many flaws but because you hate God, America, or whatever other righteous crusade is ongoing at the time.

Such heavy-handed self-righteousness is apparently good enough for some folks in Alabama and elsewhere to continue supporting the disgraced former judge. They are free to do so, but the rest of us that have a smattering of discernment have a long, thick, and disturbing book on who and what Roy Moore is, and all of it cries out for him to be kept as far from elected office as possible. To such as man as Moore, his own beliefs trump everything else, his will and desire is the paramount guide to what is right and wrong, and therefore any criticism is both unwarranted and probably downright un-American. He doesn’t have a problem with women and underaged girls; that is just Satan and money from the media. He cannot break state and federal law if he is following God’s law, but is quick to insist people who are not breaking the law are when it suits him.

And failing all that, and at attaining high office, and in conceding defeat like a man to now-Senator Doug Jones, he resorted to trying to monetize his grievances, and in doing so confirms how it really is all about him, no matter how much religion or patriotism he tries to dress himself up in.

“The liberal media, in association with some who want to destroy our Country,” he wrote, “… are doing everything they can to stop me.

“Gays, lesbians, and transgenders have joined forces with those who believe in abortion, sodomy, and destruction of all that we hold dear. Unless we stand together we will lose our Country,” he continued.

He said that “Christians can no longer afford to remain silent in these ‘perilous’ times,” taking aim at “covetous,” “unthankful,” “unholy” and “incontinent” “lovers of pleasure.”

“When I stood to bring these values and truths to Washington D. C. I was forced to fight the Washington establishment, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the ultra-liberal media and people such as George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and many others who fear the truth,” he wrote.

And by “We” he means him. And only him. So send money.

But a country, a state, and a faith that “needs” Roy Moore is one that isn’t worth having in the first place. It’s a lascivious lie born out of the gigantic ego of a warped mind determined to wave the flag and a Bible at people and expect them to throw all logic and reason away, and thank Roy for the privilege of being saved from “those people” by happily enslaving yourself to the cause of Moore.

To hell with that, and to hell with Roy Moore.

Christianity doesn’t need him, the people of Alabama deserved better than him, and our country certainly doesn’t need one more self-centered scandal-ridden politician with a martyr’s complex. Folks who love the flag and care about their faith, and the country that represents and protects both, should be leading the charge to keep Roy Moore right where he is — marginalized. The people have already judged Roy Moore, and found him wanting, as they should have.

Now go away, Roy Moore, with or without the horse you rode in on. Preferably without; the horse deserves better, too.

Share this:

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire.

19 Responses

I hope Moore gets wiped out in the primary, as he deserves. This may mean a candidate who has a better chance to defeat Jones runs in his place, but I think it’s bad for everybody when a major party nominates someone as flagrantly unfit for the office he seeks as Roy Moore.

That being said, if he wins the primary, a lot of the blame will fall on the activists and media figures who desperately wanted him to beat Jones and deciding to make all the evidence of his unfitness part of some insidious liberal plot.

One of the problems with a strategy that depends on relentlessly deceiving your own supporters is that sometimes it works.Report

We keep waiting for Moore’s *last* last stand, and it hasn’t been forthcoming, so let’s hope the primary marks the end of it.

That said, what do you do about an awful guy whose main appeal seems to be that all the “wrong” people talk about how awful he is? It’s like he and Trump absorb the vitriol of the opposition and turn it into enthusiasm (and cash) by some sort of troll photosynthesis. Silence seems negligent, and would have probably consigned Doug Jones to the scrap heap of Great Dem Southern Hopes. But the current strategy doesn’t seem to ever slay the beast.Report

My neighbors one state to the east are not dumb, and Jones has caucused enough with the Republicans that he can point to actually representing his constituents. We will have to see who runs with Moore in the primaries, but he’s not going to get the backing of the Republican establishment, which still msotly matters in southern politics.Report

I disagree with North and I think I disagree with you. I loathe Roy Moore and am glad Doug Jones won but his victory was a bit of a perfect storm of everything going right for him. Wikipedia confirmed my suspicion that Doug Jones had a within the margin of error victory. He won “673,896 votes (50.0%) to Moore’s 651,972 votes (48.3%) with 22,852 write-in votes (1.7%).” This is only because Alabama Republicans decided that Moore was their man. If Alabama Republicans were really tired of pompous bigot Roy Moore, we would be talking about Senator Luther Strange whenever mentioning the junior senator from Alabama.

Can history repeat itself and Doug Jones gets reelected in 2020 because he went against Roy Moore? Yes but it is a coin toss especially during a Presidential election year when Trumpian voters are going to be out in full force. Plus Doug Jones breaks even in the approval/disapproval ratings at 45/44 respectively.Report

I dunno Saul. In the unlikely event the GOP primary voters nominate Moore again Jones could quite possibly win. He beat Moore before without an incumbency advantage and 45/44% approval for a Democratic Senator in Ala-fishing-bama? That’s a pretty good number. Finally, Presidency elections are typically higher turnout and higher turnout generally favors Dems.Report

Yes and again, I repeat myself, I don’t think even Alabamans would nominate Moore again. I am pretty sure there’s at least one additional ambitious politician on the right in the heart of Dixie and a right leaning corpse should be able to beat proven loser Moore in the GOP primary there.Report

Just enough Republicans decided to stay home rather than go out and vote. This allowed Jones to win by a squeaker. Its better than Democratic politicians usually do in Alabama but in a sane political body, the victory would not be that close.Report

A good number either voted against or sat home, which functions as the same thing, in order for Jones to win. Those of us not in Alabama can only sling words at the grossness of the situation. As I did here.Report

From August 2018 through February 2019, AVENATTI defrauded a client (“Victim-1”) by diverting money owed to Victim-1 to AVENATTI’s control and use. After assisting Victim-1 in securing a book contract, AVENATTI allegedly stole a significant portion of Victim-1’s advance on that contract. He did so by, among other things, sending a fraudulent and unauthorized letter purporting to contain Victim-1’s signature to Victim-1’s literary agent, which instructed the agent to send payments not to Victim-1 but to a bank account controlled by AVENATTI. As alleged, Victim-1 had not signed or authorized the letter, and did not even know of its existence.

Specifically, prior to Victim-1’s literary agent wiring the second of four installment payments due to Victim-1 as part of the book advance, AVENATTI sent a letter to Victim-1’s literary agent purportedly signed by Victim-1 that instructed the literary agent to send all future payments to a client trust account in Victim-1’s name and controlled by AVENATTI. The literary agent then wired $148,750 to the account, which AVENATTI promptly began spending for his own purposes, including on airfare, hotels, car services, restaurants and meal delivery, online retailers, payroll for his law firm and another business he owned, and insurance. When Victim-1 began inquiring of AVENATTI as to why Victim-1 had not received the second installment, AVENATTI lied to Victim-1, telling Victim-1 that he was still attempting to obtain the payment from Victim-1’s publisher. Approximately one month after diverting the payment, AVENATTI used funds recently received from another source to pay $148,750 to Victim-1, so that Victim-1 would not realize that AVENATTI had previously taken and used Victim-1’s money.

Approximately one week later, pursuant to AVENATTI’s earlier fraudulent instructions, the literary agent sent another payment of $148,750 of Victim-1’s book advance to the client account controlled by AVENATTI. AVENATTI promptly began spending the money for his own purposes, including to make payments to individuals with whom AVENATTI had a personal relationship, to make a monthly lease payment on a luxury automobile, and to pay for airfare, dry cleaning, hotels, restaurants and meals, payroll, and insurance costs. Moreover, to conceal his scheme, and despite repeated requests to AVENATTI, as Victim-1’s lawyer, for assistance in obtaining the book payment that Victim-1 believed was missing, AVENATTI led Victim-1 to believe that Victim-1’s publisher was refusing to make the payment to the literary agent, when, as AVENATTI knew, the publisher had made the payment to the literary agent, who had then sent the money to AVENATTI pursuant to AVENATTI’s fraudulent instructions.

Here are my principal conclusions:1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

Rep. Justin Amash, a critic of President Trump who entertained a run against him in 2020, became the first Republican congressman to say the president “engaged in impeachable conduct.”

The Michigan lawmaker, often the lone Trump dissenter on his side of the aisle, shared his conclusions in a lengthy Twitter thread after reviewing the full special counsel report.

Amash wrote that after reading the 448-page report, he’d concluded that not only did Robert S. Mueller’s team show Trump attempting to obstruct justice, but that Attorney General William Barr had “deliberately misrepresented” the findings and that few members of Congress had even read it. “Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The president often says the report found “no collusion, no obstruction,” though neither is true. Mueller did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which did interfere in the 2016 election. He did not rule on the obstruction of justice question, saying it was something Congress should determine.

Amash, who was first elected to Congress in 2010, declined on Sunday to rule out a possible 2020 presidential run as a Libertarian candidate.

"Well, I would never rule anything out. That's not on my radar right now," he said of a 2020 bid to Tapper. "But I think that it is important that we have someone in there who is presenting a vision for America that is different from what these two parties are presenting."

Amash told Tapper he believes there is a "wild amount of partisan rhetoric on both sides" and that "Congress is totally broken."

"I think that we need to return to basic American principles, talk about what we have in common as a people -- because I believe we have a lot in common as Americans -- and try to move forward together, rather than fighting each other all the time," Amash said.

Question remains, is Justin Amash going to join any Democrat effort to curtail the president, or is he using this as prelude to something else -- such as his own run for the White House? Drama.

Comment →

Elizabeth Warren Is Rooting for Daenerys Targaryen in ‘Game of Thrones’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a Game of Thrones fan, and her favorite character is, perhaps unsurprisingly, Daenerys “Stormborn” Targaryen, who Warren says, “has been my favorite from the first moment she walked through fire.” We learned this in a column Warren wrote for The Cut published Sunday evening.

In the piece, Warren outlines her reasons for her fandom. Daenerys is fair, she fights for the people, and she wants to end slavery. But in talking about Daenerys, Warren can also, subtly, talk about herself. Like the paragraph below, in which she describes the Dragon Queen—or is she describing herself?

“This is a revolutionary idea, in Westeros or anywhere else. A queen who declares that she doesn’t serve the interests of the rich and powerful? A ruler who doesn’t want to control the political system but to break the system as it is known? It’s no wonder that the people she meets in Westeros are skeptical. Skeptical, because they’ve seen another kind of woman on the Iron Throne: the villain we love to hate, Queen Cersei of Casterly Rock.”

Meta

Featured Comment

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly: if the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We'ld jump the life to come. But [...]